Jo Maugham

Wiki also says that despite his public talk about tackling tax avoidance and evasion, Maugham has himself represented corporate interests in quite a number of cases against HMRC.

He has certainly represented tax avoidance schemes.

I would like to never be aware of Jolyon ever again. Unfortunately, every time I see a fox (regularly) I feel horror at the image of him in his half done up satin kimono clubbing a fox. I again shake my head that no civilised person would behave as he did.

He thought it was a "what a hilarious guy I am" moment when in fact it was more of a "horror story Norman Bates type" moment. He revealed far too much of himself (not just in the kimono) but when he posted his delighted tweet at what a crazy morning he'd had.

Of course, there is the whole trans issue and I choose to ignore his peculiar and hectoring interest in telling women that he knows what it is to be a woman.

However, ignoring this ignoramus is no longer possible since the foxes and every day I'm reminded of his appalling behaviour.

How on earth is he getting away with these insane attacks on everyone, and the deliberate misinterpretations whilst saying ''speaking as a lawyer'' so that easily led people believe him?

The man has lost it. He has overstepped the mark here, this is so low. Reprehensible bastard.

Yep.

Having just had a quick look on twitter this morning I think today might be the day he finally overstepped the mark. Give someone enough rope .. Surely the Bar Council should intervene. When you start bringing the holocaust into the argument about the result of a Judicial Review you've lost it and it's utterly offensive. Is there anywhere/any point in members of the public complaining about his behaviour. He needs an intervention from someone who cares about him.

There's some very satisfying discussions by other barristers on twitter about the shitshow that JM has turned in to.

twitter.com/BarbaraRich_law/status/1335169738264244224

From Wiki it seems that Maugham's social justice side is a moderately new discovery. And I'm not sure that he's very left wing. Wiki says that he was last on the advisory council of liberal conservative think tank Bright Blue, which advises the Conservative Party. In April 2017, he reportedly contemplated forming a new centrist political party.

Wiki also says that despite his public talk about tackling tax avoidance and evasion, Maugham has himself represented corporate interests in quite a number of cases against HMRC.

He generally sounds like a virtue signaller who is basically full of bull - which we already know. But on this his interest seems personal. I don't think he'd publicly refer to himself as "someone I love" though, I think it's a family member.

As a tax lawyer he's not an expert in the field of Gillick competence. No one would place any reliance on his opinion (and if a charity is paying for advice from him in an area outwith his expertise it needs to be reported to the Charity Commission).

He must know this perfectly well, and he must (at some level) also know he's spouting dangerous untruths about this judgement. Why not just come out and say that he wants children to take life changing medication even if they don't understand the implications?

Just be honest about it!

And finally - all the respect he gets for being a QC! I have (in my professional life) met many QCs and taken advice from many. The standard of their skills is hugely variable. Some are talented, constructive, and vastly knowledgeable. Others are rambling idiots who can't be bothered to do the work - who don't read their materials and are not familiar with recent developments and try to bluster their way through case conferences. No one should respect this man - a man who gleefully joked about killing a defenceless animal remember - because he's a QC. Its a nothing.

Idiots! At least they deleted... it does make me consider my monthly donation...

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4098393-Abortion-Rights-UK-tweet-about-Keira-Bell-case

I can't see that tweet from Abortion Rights - have they deleted? I'm a longstanding donor and will be very upset if they've supported JM this morning.

Janice Turner has a word:

twitter.com/VictoriaPeckham/status/1335169738041937921

That's a pretty good burn.

They have no arguments only lies and emotional blackmail. Like they conflate gay and trans rights they'll now try and use abortion rights to ger the bell ruling struck down. It seems like a long shot because the ruling was clear and reasoned but I guess they are trying to whip up an atmosphere of moral outrage to place judges under pressure to cave. So expect lots more of this crap.

If they believe this case threatens Gillick and abortion rights then doesn't that mean all laws or rulings regarding what under 16's cannot consent to also in theory threaten it?

I was going to give an example of an equivalent statement using a different religion or protected characteristic but they are all too offensive and would be immediately deleted

All those links are pretty tenuous. This is scaremongering and conspiracy-theorising, what with references to 'dark money' and all.

Where's their common sense? Where's their evidence? Heck, where's their reading comprehension?!

Well I for one I’m stunned that an organisation that is supported by the NUS & trade unions all of whom have been chanting twaw for the last few years have misrepresented the judgement

Who needs the 'Christian Right' to conflate this judgement with abortion rights when 'Abortion Rights' are happy to do the job for them?

I really don't get this Christian Right stuff. We are not in the US.

Oh no I was wrong. Half an hr ago. I take back my predictions that abortion rights would be complex & nuanced
mobile.twitter.com/Abortion_Rights/status/1335165087166963712

Also their abortion rights advent calendar is trolling anti abortion Christians.

I wonder who he means. Mostly it's one issue covered by women's orgs eg fawcett, wep. The latter are saying nothing about trans issues at the mo while their consultation is on.

Abortion rights UK haven't said anything.

My guess is they don't think the judgement poses a threat to abortion rights. Or if they think it potentially could cause trouble to the defence of abortion rights, or provide a new inroad to anti-abortion campaigners, they also think this is not straight forward, is complex & needs a nuanced response with good lawyer input rather than the kneejerk sloganeering that jm, amnesty, & liberty favour.

I think it's worth acknowledging that those who are anti abortion might use this case in their campaigning. They may even try and use similar arguments in court (about ability to consent) to make their case. Ive seen that conrathe works on anti abortion cases. I'm v well aware of all the arguments that show the difference between consenting to this and to abortion which is why having looked into it I did support keira's case. But at the centre is the issue of a child's ability to consent to things to do with their body, and where we draw the lines on that. If I was a lawyer for a pro choice campaign I would be going through the judgement, and thinking through the possible ways a future judge could interpret it in relation to abortion.

Or maybe it’s - uterus owner who’s uterus I once occupied’s the word.

Brilliant. I wish my mother still had enough marbles to enjoy the joke. I'll have to try it on the daughters. Uterus owner who once occupied my uterus.

My reply would be "The ability to use the Tavistock case to close down abortion rights - I speak as someone who can read - would be limited because of the large amount of available data evidencing the comparable risks of abortion and pregnancy"

Conveniently for him he's prevented anyone actually replying to his tissue of lies.

Maugham says that “as a lawyer” he can confirm this ruling will affect abortion rights in the U.K.

"As a lawyer" is dodgy given that his expertise and area of practice is tax law. Even there he has chosen his words carefully "would give support" is very vague.

"Success in the judicial review of the Tavistock would inevitably - I speak as a lawyer when I say this - give support to those seeking to close down abortion rights."

My reply would be "The ability to use the Tavistock case to close down abortion rights - I speak as someone who can read - would be limited because of the large amount of available data evidencing the comparable risks of abortion and pregnancy"